JimQ wrote:I was sad to read that Paul said none of his new music has been profitable.

Huh?Memory outsold Chaos.

I know i was surprised too, obviously neither sold very well:

"More recent income from touring, promotional fees and the like, earned during the marriage, is for the most part directly referable to the music I wrote over the previous 45 years. I have also created new work during the marriage which though critically acclaimed, has not been profitable." page 20 of the judgement

color me beyond curious: but, with all the public records, statements, including the judges notes, etc.: why would anyone want us to pause and give ms. mills, or her point of view, the time of day...?

never mind encourage a moment wherein we should consider the fact there might be more to this sad story...that somehow, within this sordid spectacle (created, at least publically: solely and only by miss mills) there might be another side to the story...that we shouldn't be so quick to judge...that we shouldn't leap solely and only to mr mccartneys' defense

why ?

because it's a divorce..?

because there's a child involved !?

that doesn't seem to have bothered the childs mother, not one bit: as she, and only she, has paraded publically and noisily about, tossing scandulous bits of banter towards the father of that same child !?!

PUH-LEEZE !!

unless you've got some form of concrete reason: some clear and unmistakable proof of why anyone should take a gloves off approach towards miss mills...please don't ask anyone to do something miss mills herself has been unable to do.

many here have asserted for quite some time that the lady is not much more than a gold-digger...the judge, in this case, seems to pretty much agree.

i don't think little Bea will be perusing this, or other sites, for bits of pearls of wisdom in trying to figure out what mccartney fans think of all this: but, i'm sure, she's heard a mouthful or two from her mother: she need only turn off 'sesame street' and watch the news !

at the end of the end it's the start of a journey to a much better place and this wasn't bad so a much better place would have to be special...no need to be sad...

I just read the entire brief and have to say, Paul seems more like a truly wonderful human being. Furthermore, I find Heather to be an appalling monster. This is not based on tabloids, rumors, or innuendo. It is based on the 57 page legal ruling in which she lied, exaggerated, showed herself to be unreasonable, conniving, manipulative, and an absolute gold-digger who made excessive and outrageous financial demands.

Perhaps before the ruling was made public, some of you could have defended Heather justifiably. But no more. Based on the evidence and facts of the case, it is clear that she is a despicable human being.

This is a divorce case, she is no different than many other women who do the exact same thing during a divorce. I know plenty of people who experienced that. One side saying one thing, another side saying another thing. Sometimes both sides exaggerate, sometimes it's one sided as in this case, but it happens all the time. Instead of fighting for a $50 toaster that was a wedding gift, Heather was fighting for things of much greater monetary value worth hundreds of thousands and millions in some cases. It's perspective, a normal divorce except the media frenzy bringing attention to it, and the dollar amounts involved.

I do think the judge went tremendously overboard with his numerous negative remarks, he surely did make his point and I'm sure that trigger yet another bad reaction by Heather. Some normal folks have personally experienced a divorce where the judge verbally reprimands one side in the judgment while the other side comes out looking great. It happens all the time. I know.

Divorce is a dirty business, where in divorce, exaggerations are generally the course of business to gains one posture with in the proceedings, judgments can punish the exaggerator monetarily, not criminally. In another type of court such as criminal court, exaggerations or lies come with warnings and punishment.

Please try to be civil, name calling is really for the school playground bully, not here. We all should try to show the posture Paul and his legal team has showed throughout this entire ordeal.

Here's a very good, balanced article from the UK's Guardian on Heather Mills. I think it highlights her faults/lies but fairly criticises the over the top name calling and hatred that the papers had for her.

I'm just thankful the whole sorry affair is now over and Paul can move on. Hopefully Heather Mills will rediscover her dignity and move on too. She obviously wants to be in the media and has "manipulated the truth" to improve her image but that doesn't call for the extent of hatred we've seen in some newspapers.

I genuinely think Paul comes out of this with more dignity than her, the media or many other observers.

I find it bizarre Mike, that you are so quick to defend Heather. What is this defense based on? Well, from your response it seems based on your speculation that the judge was biased, that the news media was biased, and that Heather has the right to ask for an "excessive" settlement (judges words) and lie repeatedly throughout the entire trial. I personally prefer evidence when making my judgment, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports Paul's contentions. Heather slandered Paul in the most appalling ways, including accusations that he physically harmed her, that he was verbally abusive and that he had a drug problem. The legal brief dispels these allegations but its clear there are many people who do not follow the news for whom Paul's good name has been forever tarnished.

Again, I am sticking to the facts and evidence that has been made public. And based on everything we know to be true, I do not find it to be excessive or over the top to label her a despicable monster.

I guess it does look like I'm defending her but I don't think I am. I just think it better to behave more civil than otherwise. All I'm saying is I've been in a situation and I know people who been in similar situations to Paul's. The only difference was the money amounts. Staying calm and civil as compared to, well, lets just say without the money and fame issues, I know what Paul has gone through. All I'm saying is being civil worked for me, and worked for Paul. All I'm saying is being civil here would be a proper way to move forward. Name calling and making someone look like a devil serves no purpose. Look at all the trouble that preacher got Obama into. He preached some pretty terrible stuff against us "white folk". That served no purpose but to stir up the people who were listening and to create more racial divides.